Discussions on violence in the society often focussed on what peace psychologists refer to as episodic violence. This refers to episodes of violence which involves physical confrontations between two or more aggressors that result in physical destruction, injuries and human casualties.
What is seldom talked about is another type of violence: structural violence. This refers to socio-economic policies and infrastructures that perpetuate a constant and widening gap between the rich and the poor. Essentially, what happens here is economic structures and public policies are built and maintained as such that the rich becomes richer and richer while the poor remain helplessly trapped in a state of destitution.
Compared to most other countries who gained independence after World War II, Malaysia has been fortunate to witness only a few occurrences of episodic violence. In fact, the May 13, 1969 incident remains the one and only major episode of communal violence to occur in the country since its independence in 1957.
What precipitated the episodic violence in 1969 was structural violence that continued to divide the major racial groups along economic lines. The Chinese were typically the rich merchants and businessmen, the Malays were farmers, fishermen, school teachers and clerks, while the Indians were mostly plantation and common labourers.
The New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in the aftermath of the 1969 incident was a profound attempt to reduce this structural violence. The NEP has without a doubt helped millions of Malays to pursue tertiary education, assisted thousands to set-up their own businesses, and uplifted the socio-economic status of at least two generations of Malays since its implementation.
However, although the policy was originally conceived for implementation for only 20 years, there are sections in the Malay society who believe the policy should remain for many more decades, if not forever. Loudest among them in recent days are the new 'warriors' who are part of PERKASA, an ultra Malay-nationalist group led by the one and only Dato’ Ibrahim Ali.
If someone who is poor and was clearly a victim of oppression shouts from the top of his lungs about justice for the poor Malays, I would take him seriously and pay attention to what he has to say. But when the same call is made by someone who quite obviously has continued to live a comfortable life having successfully and cunningly exploited the system, I can only shake my head in utter disbelief and dismay.
There are indeed many Malays who have remained poor despite almost 40 years of NEP. A few others however have become extremely rich but rather than giving something back to the society have continued to accumulate enormous wealth for themselves and their families by continuously exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in the policy.
Prominent blogger Haris Ibrahim in a recent posting described an interesting example of how some people had worked through the system to gain tremendous financial profit at the expense of others. His posting described how a few people who were privy of the government's plans in the early 1990's to build Putrajaya and KLIA, were scheming a plan to purchase the land around the area while the land was still cheap and then sell it for a much higher price to the government when plans for the new township and international airport are announced later.
Easy money indeed. Legally acceptable, perhaps, but most definitely morally wrong. The original land owners ought to have earned maximum profit from the land sale. And who were these naïve and unsuspected land owners? They were mostly poor Malays.
Certainly this is only one of many such examples. I, myself have had the experience of people approaching me to take part in a similar scheme. An almost complete stranger once approached me about a certain section of Langkawi Island which at the time was not yet developed. I was told then that the land can be bought cheap from the locals and in less than a year can be sold back at tremendous profit to the government when developments are approved.
Such devious schemes are made possible by the structural violence we have in this country. I sincerely wish therefore that PERKASA in its noble efforts to fight and defend Malay rights and privileges, will not set its sights only on the non-Malays. Please set your targets on the numerous unscrupulous Malays who are greatly responsible for the structural violence against the exploited poor.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Islamisasi dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam
Dalam ceramah-ceramah kempen pilihanraya anjuran Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP), antara hujah yang sering dikemukan untuk menggesa pengundi bukan Melayu supaya tidak mengundi Barisan Nasional (BN) ialah apa yang disifatkan mereka sebagai dasar Islamisasi kerajaan BN yang keterlaluan. Maka, dicanangkanlah kata-kata seperti "semua undi pada MCA adalah undi pada UMNO dan tanda sokongan terhadap dasar Islamisasi kerajaan".
Proses Islamisasi di Malaysia sangat sinonim dengan zaman pemerintahan Dr. Mahathir. Berbeza dengan perdana menteri sebelumnya, Dr. Mahathir sering disebut sebagai perdana menteri Malaysia pertama yang konsisten amalan agamanya dan tidak terpaut pemikirannya dengan ideologi pemisahan agama dalam urusan politik dan negara. Oleh yang demikian, Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam dalam agensi-agensi kerajaan diperkenalkan Dr. Mahathir sejak dari awal pemerintahannya.
Mungkin agak terlalu optimis untuk kita menganggap Dr. Mahathir sebagai pelopor gerakan Islamisasi di Malaysia yang ikhlas dalam perjuangan menegakkan syiar Islam. Keikhlasan itu sedikit sebanyak pasti ada dalam lubuk hatinya namun tidak dapat diabaikan juga kemungkinan inisiatif Dr. Mahathir ini lebih bersifat reaktif kepada situasi sosio-agama di dalam dan luar negara pada ketika itu.
Di peringkat antarabangsa, peristiwa yang menjadi pemangkin pada kebangkitan gerakan Islamisasi di seluruh dunia tidak syak lagi adalah revolusi Islam di Iran pada tahun 1979. Sebelum itu juga, bibit-bibit kebangkitan ini terserlah hasil pengaruh perjuangan kumpulan Ikhwanul Muslimin di Timur Tengah dan penyebaran meluas tulisan-tulisan pemikir Islam seperti Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb dan Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi.
Dari situasi ini, di Malaysia lahirlah pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam seperti Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) dan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang didokongi golongan muda. Dan pemimpin mereka yang paling lantang dan yang paling terkenal sepanjang tahun 1970-an tidak lain dan tidak bukan ialah Anwar Ibrahim.
Telah ditakdirkan, walaupun sebelumnya beliau kuat mengkritik kerajaan, Anwar Ibrahim akhirnya menyertai UMNO pada tahun 1982 hasil pujukan dan pelawaan Dr. Mahathir yang baru mengambil-alih tampuk pemerintahan pada ketika itu. Teori penyertaan Anwar ke dalam UMNO masih dibahaskan hingga ke hari ini. Yang sering didesas-desuskan adalah janji Dr. Mahathir memberi mandat kepada Anwar untuk menggerakkan proses Islamisasi dalam kerajaan daripada pelbagai sudut dan bidang.
Maka lahir dan berkembanglah insitusi perbankan Islam, institusi pengajian tinggi Islam dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam Di Sektor Awam hasil usahasama Dr. Mahathir dan Anwar Ibrahim. Hingga kini, Malaysia dikenali serata dunia sebagai penggerak utama perbankan dan produk-produk kewangan Islam. Dan dalam bidang pendidikan, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia kekal dengan imejnya di dalam dan di luar negara sebagai insitusi pengajian tinggi Islam yang progresif dan moden.
Proses Islamisasi dalam institusi perbankan dan institusi pengajian tinggi tidak banyak mengundang kontroversi. Yang menjadi kontroversi ialah bila ianya menyusup ke sektor awam terutamanya dalam sistem pendidikan kebangsaan. Lebih menyulitkan lagi bilamana proses ini dianggap berselindung di sebalik agenda politik untuk menarik undi and sokongan pengundi-pengundi Melayu. Lantas, proses Islamisasi ini dilihat ramai orang bukan Islam sebagai tidak lebih dari usaha UMNO untuk mengekang pengaruh PAS di kalangan masyarakat Melayu Islam di Malaysia.
Akibat daripada pertandingan 'siapa yang lebih Islamik' antara UMNO dan PAS ini, pelbagai polemik dan polisi agama diketengahkan tanpa mengambil kira pandangan dan reaksi masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia. Di sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan, pendidikan agama Islam diberi lebih penekanan. Bacaan doa setiap hari dan ceramah agama semasa perhimpunan mingguan diperkenalkan di banyak sekolah-sekolah. Adakalanya, majlis sambutan perayaan agama seperti Ma'al Hijrah dan Maulidur-Rasul juga diadakan semasa perhimpunan mingguan di mana semua pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam turut serta secara paksa-rela.
Sebagai orang Islam, saya tidak punya masalah dengan kekerapan aktiviti-aktiviti agama di sekolah-sekolah. Saya sendiri pernah menjadi pembaca doa dan menyampaikan pidato agama dalam perhimpunan mingguan walaupun sekolah saya di Petaling Jaya ketika itu hampir separuh pelajar-pelajarnya adalah pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam. Tidak terlintas di fikiran yang rakan-rakan bukan Islam saya di sekolah mungkin tidak selesa dengan aktiviti-aktiviti agama yang dijalankan.
Namun kini saya menyedari perasaan kurang senang jelas tersemat di hati mereka terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Cina yang kesannya jelas kelihatan sekarang ini. Sejak awal 1990-an, kebanyakan ibubapa Cina tidak lagi memilih menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah kebangsaan. Walaupun terpaksa membayar kos perbelanjaan yang lebih tinggi, lebih 90 peratus ibubapa-ibubapa Cina memilih untuk menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina. Fenomena ini jelas memberi kesan yang agak negatif kepada keharmonian hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina.
Melihat akan situasi ini, patutkah proses dan dasar Islamisasi kerajaan dipersalahkan?
Jika dilihat secara objektif, fenomena kebangkitan kesedaran agama tidak berlaku di Malaysia sahaja dan tidak juga hanya melibatkan penganut agama Islam. Di kalangan umat Islam, kebangkitan agama berlaku di hampir semua negara-negara Islam dari Maghribi hinggalah ke Indonesia, dan turut berlaku di kalangan masyarakat minoriti Muslim di negara-negara Barat.
Di kalangan penganut Hindu di India, fenomena kebangkitan agama berkembang begitu kuat sehingga tertabalnya kerajaan fundamentalis Hindu pada tahun 1998. Di Amerika pula, fenomena ini melibatkan perkembangan kumpulah-kumpulan fundamentalis Kristian yang cukup berpengaruh dalam parti Republikan di sana. Secara amnya, sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, pengaruh ideologi sekularisme sudah sedikit berkurangan hasil kebangkitan pengaruh agama dalam kehidupan masyarakat di seluruh dunia.
Jadi, apa yang berlaku di Malaysia bukanlah suatu yang unik. Namun, ianya tidak juga boleh dipandang ringan dan dibiarkan tanpa diambil sebarang tindakan.
Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, perlu ada persefahaman yang melibatkan usaha dan pengorbanan daripada semua pihak. Saya masih tidak menganggap bacaan doa yang tidak pun memakan masa lebih dari lima minit dalam perhimpunan mingguan di sekolah-sekolah sebagai satu masalah. Namun saya bersetuju, tidak sesuai sekiranya waktu perhimpunan itu yang melibatkan semua pelajar Islam dan bukan Islam digunakan untuk ceramah agama dan majlis perayaan Maulidur-Rasul dan Ma'al Hijrah. Pihak sekolah seharusnya boleh mengatur program pada waktu yang lain khas bagi pelajar-pelajar Islam untuk majlis-majlis berkenaan.
Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia, walaupun benar merupakan golongan majoriti di sini, perlu juga mengambil berat perasaan dan sensitiviti golongan minoriti. Begitu juga bagi masyarakat bukan Islam yang perlu mengambil tahu sensitiviti dan pegangan hidup orang-orang Islam.
Saya kurang bersetuju dengan pendapat yang menganggap penyelesaian pada cabaran ini adalah pendekatan Islam yang sekular dan liberal. Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia dan di seluruh dunia amnya tidak dapat menerima fahaman dan pendekatan sekularisme yang memupuk pemisahan amalan agama dalam urusan kerja. Umat Islam menganggap ajaran Islam itu sebagai satu cara hidup yang mempengaruhi segala kegiatan dan tingkah laku. Maka, jika ada sebarang desakan atau paksaan agar amalan agama dikesampingkan, ramai orang Islam pasti akan memberontak dan menentang.
Bagi fahaman Islam liberal pula, sekiranya fahaman ini bermaksud kesederhanaan dan keterbukaan hingga ke tahap penerimaan terhadap perbuatan-perbuatan terlarang seperti hubungan seks luar nikah, amalan homoseksual dan pergaulan bebas antara lelaki dan perempuan di kalangan orang-orang Islam, majoriti umat Islam pastinya akan menolak dan menentangnya juga. Namun, sekiranya fahaman ini lebih menjurus kepada keterbukaan dari segi kesediaan untuk berdialog dan berdebat secara ilmiah isu-isu fekah semasa, ramai yang boleh menerimanya sebagai salah satu usaha menangangi cabaran Islam di zaman moden.
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) pada pilihanraya umum yang lalu tampil dengan slogannya 'PAS Untuk Semua'. Memang mudah berslogan namun untuk direalisasikan perlu perbincangan menyeluruh yang melibatkan pemimpin-pemimpin dan ilmuwan-ilmuwan Islam dan bukan Islam agar persefahaman dapat dibentuk dan kata sepakat dapat dicapai. Saya yakin dan percaya, ada jalan dan caranya agar dasar Islamisasi dapat diteruskan bagi memenuhi keperluan masyarakat Islam tanpa perlu menyinggung perasaan dan membangkitkan penentangan daripada masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia.
(Artikel ini telah dipaparkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives. Klik di sini untuk melihat arikel asal)
Proses Islamisasi di Malaysia sangat sinonim dengan zaman pemerintahan Dr. Mahathir. Berbeza dengan perdana menteri sebelumnya, Dr. Mahathir sering disebut sebagai perdana menteri Malaysia pertama yang konsisten amalan agamanya dan tidak terpaut pemikirannya dengan ideologi pemisahan agama dalam urusan politik dan negara. Oleh yang demikian, Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam dalam agensi-agensi kerajaan diperkenalkan Dr. Mahathir sejak dari awal pemerintahannya.
Mungkin agak terlalu optimis untuk kita menganggap Dr. Mahathir sebagai pelopor gerakan Islamisasi di Malaysia yang ikhlas dalam perjuangan menegakkan syiar Islam. Keikhlasan itu sedikit sebanyak pasti ada dalam lubuk hatinya namun tidak dapat diabaikan juga kemungkinan inisiatif Dr. Mahathir ini lebih bersifat reaktif kepada situasi sosio-agama di dalam dan luar negara pada ketika itu.
Di peringkat antarabangsa, peristiwa yang menjadi pemangkin pada kebangkitan gerakan Islamisasi di seluruh dunia tidak syak lagi adalah revolusi Islam di Iran pada tahun 1979. Sebelum itu juga, bibit-bibit kebangkitan ini terserlah hasil pengaruh perjuangan kumpulan Ikhwanul Muslimin di Timur Tengah dan penyebaran meluas tulisan-tulisan pemikir Islam seperti Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb dan Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi.
Dari situasi ini, di Malaysia lahirlah pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam seperti Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) dan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang didokongi golongan muda. Dan pemimpin mereka yang paling lantang dan yang paling terkenal sepanjang tahun 1970-an tidak lain dan tidak bukan ialah Anwar Ibrahim.
Telah ditakdirkan, walaupun sebelumnya beliau kuat mengkritik kerajaan, Anwar Ibrahim akhirnya menyertai UMNO pada tahun 1982 hasil pujukan dan pelawaan Dr. Mahathir yang baru mengambil-alih tampuk pemerintahan pada ketika itu. Teori penyertaan Anwar ke dalam UMNO masih dibahaskan hingga ke hari ini. Yang sering didesas-desuskan adalah janji Dr. Mahathir memberi mandat kepada Anwar untuk menggerakkan proses Islamisasi dalam kerajaan daripada pelbagai sudut dan bidang.
Maka lahir dan berkembanglah insitusi perbankan Islam, institusi pengajian tinggi Islam dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam Di Sektor Awam hasil usahasama Dr. Mahathir dan Anwar Ibrahim. Hingga kini, Malaysia dikenali serata dunia sebagai penggerak utama perbankan dan produk-produk kewangan Islam. Dan dalam bidang pendidikan, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia kekal dengan imejnya di dalam dan di luar negara sebagai insitusi pengajian tinggi Islam yang progresif dan moden.
Proses Islamisasi dalam institusi perbankan dan institusi pengajian tinggi tidak banyak mengundang kontroversi. Yang menjadi kontroversi ialah bila ianya menyusup ke sektor awam terutamanya dalam sistem pendidikan kebangsaan. Lebih menyulitkan lagi bilamana proses ini dianggap berselindung di sebalik agenda politik untuk menarik undi and sokongan pengundi-pengundi Melayu. Lantas, proses Islamisasi ini dilihat ramai orang bukan Islam sebagai tidak lebih dari usaha UMNO untuk mengekang pengaruh PAS di kalangan masyarakat Melayu Islam di Malaysia.
Akibat daripada pertandingan 'siapa yang lebih Islamik' antara UMNO dan PAS ini, pelbagai polemik dan polisi agama diketengahkan tanpa mengambil kira pandangan dan reaksi masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia. Di sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan, pendidikan agama Islam diberi lebih penekanan. Bacaan doa setiap hari dan ceramah agama semasa perhimpunan mingguan diperkenalkan di banyak sekolah-sekolah. Adakalanya, majlis sambutan perayaan agama seperti Ma'al Hijrah dan Maulidur-Rasul juga diadakan semasa perhimpunan mingguan di mana semua pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam turut serta secara paksa-rela.
Sebagai orang Islam, saya tidak punya masalah dengan kekerapan aktiviti-aktiviti agama di sekolah-sekolah. Saya sendiri pernah menjadi pembaca doa dan menyampaikan pidato agama dalam perhimpunan mingguan walaupun sekolah saya di Petaling Jaya ketika itu hampir separuh pelajar-pelajarnya adalah pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam. Tidak terlintas di fikiran yang rakan-rakan bukan Islam saya di sekolah mungkin tidak selesa dengan aktiviti-aktiviti agama yang dijalankan.
Namun kini saya menyedari perasaan kurang senang jelas tersemat di hati mereka terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Cina yang kesannya jelas kelihatan sekarang ini. Sejak awal 1990-an, kebanyakan ibubapa Cina tidak lagi memilih menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah kebangsaan. Walaupun terpaksa membayar kos perbelanjaan yang lebih tinggi, lebih 90 peratus ibubapa-ibubapa Cina memilih untuk menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina. Fenomena ini jelas memberi kesan yang agak negatif kepada keharmonian hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina.
Melihat akan situasi ini, patutkah proses dan dasar Islamisasi kerajaan dipersalahkan?
Jika dilihat secara objektif, fenomena kebangkitan kesedaran agama tidak berlaku di Malaysia sahaja dan tidak juga hanya melibatkan penganut agama Islam. Di kalangan umat Islam, kebangkitan agama berlaku di hampir semua negara-negara Islam dari Maghribi hinggalah ke Indonesia, dan turut berlaku di kalangan masyarakat minoriti Muslim di negara-negara Barat.
Di kalangan penganut Hindu di India, fenomena kebangkitan agama berkembang begitu kuat sehingga tertabalnya kerajaan fundamentalis Hindu pada tahun 1998. Di Amerika pula, fenomena ini melibatkan perkembangan kumpulah-kumpulan fundamentalis Kristian yang cukup berpengaruh dalam parti Republikan di sana. Secara amnya, sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, pengaruh ideologi sekularisme sudah sedikit berkurangan hasil kebangkitan pengaruh agama dalam kehidupan masyarakat di seluruh dunia.
Jadi, apa yang berlaku di Malaysia bukanlah suatu yang unik. Namun, ianya tidak juga boleh dipandang ringan dan dibiarkan tanpa diambil sebarang tindakan.
Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, perlu ada persefahaman yang melibatkan usaha dan pengorbanan daripada semua pihak. Saya masih tidak menganggap bacaan doa yang tidak pun memakan masa lebih dari lima minit dalam perhimpunan mingguan di sekolah-sekolah sebagai satu masalah. Namun saya bersetuju, tidak sesuai sekiranya waktu perhimpunan itu yang melibatkan semua pelajar Islam dan bukan Islam digunakan untuk ceramah agama dan majlis perayaan Maulidur-Rasul dan Ma'al Hijrah. Pihak sekolah seharusnya boleh mengatur program pada waktu yang lain khas bagi pelajar-pelajar Islam untuk majlis-majlis berkenaan.
Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia, walaupun benar merupakan golongan majoriti di sini, perlu juga mengambil berat perasaan dan sensitiviti golongan minoriti. Begitu juga bagi masyarakat bukan Islam yang perlu mengambil tahu sensitiviti dan pegangan hidup orang-orang Islam.
Saya kurang bersetuju dengan pendapat yang menganggap penyelesaian pada cabaran ini adalah pendekatan Islam yang sekular dan liberal. Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia dan di seluruh dunia amnya tidak dapat menerima fahaman dan pendekatan sekularisme yang memupuk pemisahan amalan agama dalam urusan kerja. Umat Islam menganggap ajaran Islam itu sebagai satu cara hidup yang mempengaruhi segala kegiatan dan tingkah laku. Maka, jika ada sebarang desakan atau paksaan agar amalan agama dikesampingkan, ramai orang Islam pasti akan memberontak dan menentang.
Bagi fahaman Islam liberal pula, sekiranya fahaman ini bermaksud kesederhanaan dan keterbukaan hingga ke tahap penerimaan terhadap perbuatan-perbuatan terlarang seperti hubungan seks luar nikah, amalan homoseksual dan pergaulan bebas antara lelaki dan perempuan di kalangan orang-orang Islam, majoriti umat Islam pastinya akan menolak dan menentangnya juga. Namun, sekiranya fahaman ini lebih menjurus kepada keterbukaan dari segi kesediaan untuk berdialog dan berdebat secara ilmiah isu-isu fekah semasa, ramai yang boleh menerimanya sebagai salah satu usaha menangangi cabaran Islam di zaman moden.
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) pada pilihanraya umum yang lalu tampil dengan slogannya 'PAS Untuk Semua'. Memang mudah berslogan namun untuk direalisasikan perlu perbincangan menyeluruh yang melibatkan pemimpin-pemimpin dan ilmuwan-ilmuwan Islam dan bukan Islam agar persefahaman dapat dibentuk dan kata sepakat dapat dicapai. Saya yakin dan percaya, ada jalan dan caranya agar dasar Islamisasi dapat diteruskan bagi memenuhi keperluan masyarakat Islam tanpa perlu menyinggung perasaan dan membangkitkan penentangan daripada masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia.
(Artikel ini telah dipaparkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives. Klik di sini untuk melihat arikel asal)
Monday, 22 February 2010
Do We Really Want The Best and The Brightest?
Professor Doran Hunter, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and Senior Fulbright Scholar was at IIUM recently where he delivered a series of talks centred around the issue of moral and good governance. During his last lecture, he was asked about his views on the necessity to have the best and the brightest to lead a moral and good government. His response was quite astounding.
He first made reference to the classic book The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam who explained how the best and brightest people who advised President John F. Kennedy on Vietnam; all of them were wrong on how to best deal with the tensive situation. JFK in fact was the only one who was sensible enough to understand that war should be the absolute final resort, not a strategic move for any kind of psychological and moral victory. And the reason JFK was so adamantly against full military action was not because he was the best and brightest or even smarter than all his expert-advisers. He felt so strongly about it simply because he was once a soldier, thus knew very well what wars are all about especially the countless sufferings and hardships they bring.
Professor Hunter then drove home the point that the best and brighest are not always right. They may be the brightest as far as intelligence and academic achievements are concern, but without any real experience dealing with real-life situations, all their knowledge could be dangerously superficial. Which is why Americans have most often voted in presidents who were either former senators or former governors. These people may not necessarily be the brightest but they have the experience and the practical understanding on how to govern effectively and get things done. Hence the conclusion by Professor Hunter, he would never agree with the idea of using technology in genetic science to 'breed' an elite group of the best and brightest individuals to lead nations and governments.
Professor Hunter however seemed to have contradicted himself when responding to queries on his views on President Obama and his cabinet members. Although a Republican, Professor Hunter admits that he voted for Obama because he graduated from the best law school in America (at Harvard University) and has deep respect and understanding of the American Constitution having taught 'Constitutional Law' at several universities prior to his direct involvement in politics. Professor Hunter further exclaims that President Obama has managed to put together a remarkable cabinet whose members are among the best and brigthest in America.
These views may appear contradictory at a glance but once thought about further and deeper may not necessarily be so. President Obama's academic credentials were not the only reason why millions of Americans voted for him. His unique family and social background and experiences as a community organiser convinced many Americans that he truly understands the routine hardships and predicaments of millions of ordinary Americans. As the comedian Chris Rock once said in an interview during the campaign period back in 2008; "it's simple, vote for the guy with one house (Obama)... The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy (John McCain) can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses." (McCain and his wife were reported to own 12 houses)
Intelligence and academic credentials alone are not enough. But if they are blended with a deep sense understanding and experience of realities as viewed by the common people, that would be a powerful combination.
In my recent article to the Centre for Policy Initiatives, I expressed the need to find Malaysia's very own Manmohan Singh. I admit the article focussed more on the current Indian Prime Minister's impeccable academic and professional credentials, but those who are familiar with his personal background would know that Manmohan Singh also came from humble origins. His experience growing up in pre-partitioned India and as a Sikh in a Hindu-majority society I'm sure has helped him enormously while serving as prime minister.
Which begs us to ask, are only those from a lower social class whose families were poor and endured extreme hardship capable of becoming a compassionate and just political leader? Or from another point-of-view, are those with upper-class family background who grew up with wealth and comfort incapable to fully understand the plight and realities of the common people?
Malaysia's current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a living-ebodiment of this challenge. As a son of a former prime minister, how can he possibly understand the daily and routine hardship faced by many Malaysians? How can he possibly for example appreciates the struggles of a fisherman or a rubber-tapper who wakes up at 5 am every morning to work? Does he know what it feels like to struggle every month to pay various bills and expenses - water, electricity, food, children's expenses etc?
I'm sure he doesn't, which is why he appears most of the time like the feudal leader he is rather than a leader for the people. But that's not his fault, isn't it? I mean, should his father Tun Abdul Razak denied him the comfort of living in the Prime Minister's official residence and sent him to school in a far away kampung and let him live a wooden pondok just so that he knows what it feels like to be poor?
This is fast encroaching into issues in parenting vis-a-vis the challenges of modernity, which deserves a different posting, later...
He first made reference to the classic book The Best and The Brightest by David Halberstam who explained how the best and brightest people who advised President John F. Kennedy on Vietnam; all of them were wrong on how to best deal with the tensive situation. JFK in fact was the only one who was sensible enough to understand that war should be the absolute final resort, not a strategic move for any kind of psychological and moral victory. And the reason JFK was so adamantly against full military action was not because he was the best and brightest or even smarter than all his expert-advisers. He felt so strongly about it simply because he was once a soldier, thus knew very well what wars are all about especially the countless sufferings and hardships they bring.
Professor Hunter then drove home the point that the best and brighest are not always right. They may be the brightest as far as intelligence and academic achievements are concern, but without any real experience dealing with real-life situations, all their knowledge could be dangerously superficial. Which is why Americans have most often voted in presidents who were either former senators or former governors. These people may not necessarily be the brightest but they have the experience and the practical understanding on how to govern effectively and get things done. Hence the conclusion by Professor Hunter, he would never agree with the idea of using technology in genetic science to 'breed' an elite group of the best and brightest individuals to lead nations and governments.
Professor Hunter however seemed to have contradicted himself when responding to queries on his views on President Obama and his cabinet members. Although a Republican, Professor Hunter admits that he voted for Obama because he graduated from the best law school in America (at Harvard University) and has deep respect and understanding of the American Constitution having taught 'Constitutional Law' at several universities prior to his direct involvement in politics. Professor Hunter further exclaims that President Obama has managed to put together a remarkable cabinet whose members are among the best and brigthest in America.
These views may appear contradictory at a glance but once thought about further and deeper may not necessarily be so. President Obama's academic credentials were not the only reason why millions of Americans voted for him. His unique family and social background and experiences as a community organiser convinced many Americans that he truly understands the routine hardships and predicaments of millions of ordinary Americans. As the comedian Chris Rock once said in an interview during the campaign period back in 2008; "it's simple, vote for the guy with one house (Obama)... The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy (John McCain) can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses." (McCain and his wife were reported to own 12 houses)
Intelligence and academic credentials alone are not enough. But if they are blended with a deep sense understanding and experience of realities as viewed by the common people, that would be a powerful combination.
In my recent article to the Centre for Policy Initiatives, I expressed the need to find Malaysia's very own Manmohan Singh. I admit the article focussed more on the current Indian Prime Minister's impeccable academic and professional credentials, but those who are familiar with his personal background would know that Manmohan Singh also came from humble origins. His experience growing up in pre-partitioned India and as a Sikh in a Hindu-majority society I'm sure has helped him enormously while serving as prime minister.
Which begs us to ask, are only those from a lower social class whose families were poor and endured extreme hardship capable of becoming a compassionate and just political leader? Or from another point-of-view, are those with upper-class family background who grew up with wealth and comfort incapable to fully understand the plight and realities of the common people?
Malaysia's current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a living-ebodiment of this challenge. As a son of a former prime minister, how can he possibly understand the daily and routine hardship faced by many Malaysians? How can he possibly for example appreciates the struggles of a fisherman or a rubber-tapper who wakes up at 5 am every morning to work? Does he know what it feels like to struggle every month to pay various bills and expenses - water, electricity, food, children's expenses etc?
I'm sure he doesn't, which is why he appears most of the time like the feudal leader he is rather than a leader for the people. But that's not his fault, isn't it? I mean, should his father Tun Abdul Razak denied him the comfort of living in the Prime Minister's official residence and sent him to school in a far away kampung and let him live a wooden pondok just so that he knows what it feels like to be poor?
This is fast encroaching into issues in parenting vis-a-vis the challenges of modernity, which deserves a different posting, later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)